Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

(THE CRISIS IN OUR PARTY)

G. The Party Rules. Comrade Martov’s Draft

From the programme, the Congress passed to the Party Rules (we
      leave out the question of the Central Organ, already touched on
      above, and the delegates’ reports, which the majority of the
      delegates were unfortunately unable to present in a satisfactory
      form). Needless to say, the question of the Rules was of
      tremendous importance to all of us. After all,Iskrahad acted from the very outset not only as a press organ but
      also as anorganisationalnucleus. In an editorial in
      its fourth issue (“Where To Begin”)Iskrahad put
      forward a whole plan of

			       organisation,[1][1]In his speech on the adoption ofIskraas the Central Organ, Comrade
Popov said,inter alia: “I recall the article ’Where To Begin’ in No. 3
or No. 4 ofIskra. Many of the comrades active in Russia found it a
tactless article; others thought this plan was fantastic, and the majority
[?—probably the majority around Comrade Popov] attributed it solely to
ambition” (p. 140). As the reader sees, it is no new thing for me to hear my
political views attributed to ambition—an explanation now being rehashed
by Comrade Axelrod and Comrade Martov. —Leninwhich it pursued
      systematically and steadily over a period ofthree
      years. When the Second Party Congress adoptedIskraas the Central Organ, two of the three points of
      the preamble of the resolution on the subject (p. 147) were
      devotedprecisely to this organisational plan and to“Iskra’s”organisational ideas: its role in
      directingthepracticalwork of the Party and the
      leading part it had played in the work of attaining unity. It is
      quite natural, therefore, that the work ofIskraand
      the entire work of organising the Party, the entire work ofactuallyrestoring the Party,could notbe
      regarded as finished until definite ideas of organisation had
      been adopted by the whole Party and formally enacted. This task
      was to be performed by the Party’s Rules of Organisation.

The principal ideas whichIskrastrove to make the
      basis of the Party’s organisation amounted essentially to the
      following two: first, the idea of centralism, which defined in
      principle the method of deciding all particular and detail
      questions of organisation; second, the special function of an
      organ, a newspaper, for ideological leadership—an idea
      which took into account the temporary and special requirements
      of the Russian Social-Democratic working-class movement in the
      existing conditions of political slavery, with theinitialbase of operations for the revolutionary
      assault being set up abroad. The first idea, as the one matter
      of principle, had to pervade the entire Rules; the second, being
      a particular idea necessitated by temporary circumstances of
      place and mode of action, took the form of aseemingdeparture from centralism in the proposal to set uptwo
      centres,a Central Organ and a Central Committee.
      Both these principalIskraideas of Party organisation
      had been developed by me in theIskraeditorial (No. 4) “Where To

Begin”[2]and inWhat Is To Be

Done?[3]and, finally, had been explained in detail, in a form that was
      practically a finished set of Rules, inA Letter to a

			       Comrade.[4]Actually, all that
      remained was the work of formulating the paragraphs of the
      Rules, which were to embody just those ideas if the recognition
      ofIskrawas not to be merely nominal, a mere
      conventional phrase. In the preface to the new edition of myLetter to a ComradeI have already pointed out that a
      simple comparison of the Party Rules with that pamphlet is
      enough to establish the complete identity of the ideas of
      organisation contained in the

				  two.[5]

A proposof the work of formulatingIskra’s
      ideas of organisation in the Rules, I must deal with a certain
      incident mentioned by Comrade Martov. “. . . A statement of
      fact,” said Martov at the League Congress (p. 58), "will show
      you how far my lapse into opportunism on this paragraph [i.e.,
      Paragraph 1] was unexpected by Lenin. About a month and a half
      or two months before the Congress I showed Lenin my draft, in
      which Paragraph 1 was formulated just in the way I proposed it
      at the Congress. Lenin objected to my draft on the ground that
      it was too detailed, and told me that all he liked was the idea
      of Paragraph 1—the definition of Party
      membership—which he would incorporate in his Rules with
      certain modifications, because he did not think my formulation
      was a happy one. Thus, Lenin had long been acquainted with my
      formulation, he knew my views on this subject. You thus see that
      I came to the Congress with my visor up, that I did not conceal
      my views. I warned him that I would oppose mutual co-optation,
      the principle of unanimity in cases of co-optation to the
      Central Committee and the Central Organ, and so on."

As regards the warning about opposing mutual co-optation, we
      shall see in its proper place how matters really stood. At
      present let us deal with this “open visor” of Martov’s Rules. At
      the League Congress, recounting from memory this episode of his
      unhappy draft (which he himself withdrew at the Congress because
      it was an unhappy one, but after the Congress, with his
      characteristic consistency, again brought out into the light of
      day), Martov, as so often happens, forgot a good deal and
      therefore again got things muddled. One would have thought there
      had already been cases enough to warn him against quoting
      private conversations and relying on his memory (people
      involuntarily recall only what is to their
      advantage!)—nevertheless, for want of any other, Comrade
      Martov used unsound material. Today even Comrade Plekhanov is
      beginning to imitate him—evidently, a bad example is
      contagious.

I could not have “liked” the “idea” of Paragraph 1 of Martov’s
      draft, for that draft containedno ideathat came up at
      the Congress. His memory played him false. I have been fortunate
      enough to find Martov’s draft among my papers, andin it
      “Paragraph 1 is formulated n o tin the
      way he proposed it at the Congress”! So much for the “open
      visor”!

Paragraph is clearly evident from this juxtaposition that there is noideain Martov’s draft, but only anempty
      phrase. That Party members must work under the control and
      direction of theorgansof the Party goes without
      saying;it cannot be otherwise, and only those talk
      about it who love to talk without saying anything, who love to
      drown “Rules” in a flood of verbiage and bureaucratic formulas
      (that is, formulas useless for the work and supposed to be
      useful for display). Theideaof Paragraph 1 appears
      only when the question is asked: can theorgans of the
      Partyexerciseactualdirection over Party members
      whodo not belongto any of theParty
      organisations? There is not even a trace of this idea in
      Comrade Martov’s draft. Consequently,I could not have been
      acquaintedwith the “views” of Comrade Martov “on this
      subject”, for in Comrade Martov’s draft there areno
      viewson this subject. Comrade Martov’s statement of fact
      proves to be amuddle.

About Comrade Martov, on the other hand, it does have to be said
      that from my draft “he knew my views on this subject” and did
      not protest against them, did not reject them, either on the
      editorial board, although my draft was shown to everyone two or
      three weeks before the Congress, or in talking to the delegates,
      who were acquaintedonlywith my draft. More, evenat the Congress, when I moved mydraft

				   Rules[6][6]Incidentally, the Minutes Committee, in Appendix XI, has published the draft
Rules “moved at the Congress by Lenin” (p. 393). Here the Minutes
Committee has also muddled things a little. It has confused myoriginaldraft (see present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 476-78.—Ed.), which was
shown to all the delegates (and to many before the Congress), with the draftmoved at the Congress, andpublished the formerunder the
guise of the latter. Of course, I have no objection to my drafts being
published,even in all their stages of preparation, but there was no
need to cause confusion. And confusion has been caused, for Popov and Martov
(pp. 154 and 157) criticised formulations in the draft I actually moved at the
Congresswhich are not in the draftpublished by the Minutes Committee
(cf. p. 394, Paragraphs 7 and 11). With a little more care, the mistake could
easily have been detected simply by comparing the pages I mention.
—Leninand defended
      thembefore the election of the Rules Committee,Comrade Martov distinctly stated: “I associate myself with
      Comrade Lenin’s conclusions.Only on two points do I
      disagree with him” (my italics)—on the mode of
      constituting the Council and on unanimous co-optation
      (p. 157).Not a word was yet said about any differenceover Paragraph 1.

In his pamphlet on the state of siege, Comrade Martov saw fit to
      recall his Rules once more, and in great detail. He assures us
      there that his Rules, to which, with the exception of certain
      minor particulars, he would be prepared to subscribe even now
      (February 1904—we cannot say how it will be three months
      hence), “quite clearly expressed his disapproval of hypertrophy
      of centralism” (p. iv). The reason he did not submit this draft
      to the Congress, Comrade Martov now explains, was, firstly, that
      “hisIskratraining had imbued him with disdain for
      Rules” (when it suits Comrade Martov, the wordIskrameans for him, not a narrow circle spirit, but the most
      steadfast of trends! It is a pity, however, that Comrade
      Martov’sIskratraining did not imbue him in three
      years with disdain for the anarchistic phrases by which the
      unstable mentality of the intellectual is capable of justifying
      the violation of Rules adopted by common consent). Secondly,
      that, don’t you see, he, Comrade Martov, wanted to avoid
      “introducing any dissonance into the tactics of that basic
      organisational nucleus whichIskraconstituted”. Wonderfully consistent, isn’t it? On a question ofprincipleregarding an opportunist formulation of
      Paragraph 1 or hypertrophy of centralism, Comrade Martov was soafraid of any dissonance (which is terrible only from the
      narrowest circle point of view) that he did not set forth his
      disagreement even to a nucleus like the editorial board! On thepracticalquestion of the composition of the central
      bodies, Comrade Martov appealed for the assistance of the Bund
      and theRabocheye Dyelo-ist! against the vote of the
      majority of theIskraorganisation (that realbasic
      organisational nucleus). The “dissonance” in his phrases,
      which smuggle in the circle spirit in defence of the
      quasi-editorial board only to repudiate the “circle spirit” in
      the appraisal of the question by those best qualfied to
      judge—this dissonance Comrade Martov does not notice. To
      punish him, we shall quote his, draft Rulesin full,noting for our part what views and what hypertrophy they

				reveal[7]:

"Draft of Party Rules.—I. Party membership.—1) A
      member of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party is one who,
      accepting its programme, works actively to accompish its aims
      under the control and direction of the organs of the
      Party.—2) Expulsion of a member from the Party for conduct
      incompatible with the interests of the Party shall be decided by
      the Central Committee. [The sentence of expulsion, giving the
      reasons, shall be preserved in the Party files and shall be
      communicated, on request, to every Party committee. The Central
      Committee’s decision to expel a member may be appealed against
      to the Congress on the demand of two or more committees.]" I
      shall indicate by square brackets the provisions in Martov’s
      draft which areobviouslymeaningless, failing to
      contan not only “ideas”, but even any definite conditions or
      requirements—like the inimitable specification in the
      “Rules” as towhere exactlya sentence of expulsion is
      to be preserved, or the provision that the Central Committee’s
      decision to expel a member (and not all its decision in
      general?) may be appealed against to the Congress. This, indeed,
      is hypertrophy of verbiage, or real bureaucratic formalism,
      which frames superfluous, patently useless or red-tapist, points
      and paragraphs. “II. Local Committees.—3) In its local
      work, the Party is represented by the Party committees” (how new
      and clever!). "4) [As Party committees are recognised all those
      existing at the time of the Second Congress and represented at
      the Congress.]—5) New Party committees, in addition to
      those mentioned in Paragraph 4, shall be appointed by the
      Central Committee [which shall either endorse as a committee the
      existing membership of the given local organisation, or shall
      set up a local committee by reforming the latter].—6) The
      committees may add to their membership by means of
      co-optation.—7) The Central Committee has the rightto
      augment the membership of a local committee with such numbers of
      comrades (known to it) as shall not exceed one-third of the
      total membership of the committee." A perfect sample of
      bureaucracy. Why not exceeding one-third? What is the purpose of
      this? What is the sense of this restriction which restricts
      nothing, seeing that theaugmentingmay be repeated
      over and over again? "8) [In the event of a local committee
      falling apart or being broken up by persecution" (does this mean
      that not all the members have been arrested?), "the Central
      Committee shall re-establish it.]" (Without regard to Paragraph
      7? Does not Comrade Martov perceive a similarity between
      Paragraph 8 and those Russian laws on orderly conduct which
      command citizens to work on weekdays and rest on holidays?) "9)
      [A regular Party Congress may instruct the Central Committee to
      reform the composition of any local committee if the activities
      of the latter are found incompatible with the interests of the
      Party. In that event the existing committee shall be deemed
      dissolved and the comrades in its area of operation exempt from

      subordination[8]to it.]” The provision contained in this
      paragraph is as highly useful as the provision contained to this
      day in the Russian law which reads: “Drunkenness is forbidden to
      all and sundry.” "10) [The local Party committees shall direct
      all the propagandist, agitational, and organisational activities
      of the Party in their localities and shall do all in their power
      to assist the Central Committee and the Central Organs of the
      Party in carrying out the general Party tasks entrusted to
      them.]" Phew! What in the name of all that’s holy is the purpose
      of this? "11) [The internal arrangements of a local
      organisation, the mutual relations between a committee and the
      groups subordinate to it" (do you hear that, Comrade Axelrod?),
      "and the limits of the competence and autonomy" (are not the
      limits of competence the same as the limits of autonomy?) "of
      these groups shall be determined by the committee itself and
      communicated to the Central Committee and the editorial board of
      the Central Organs.]" (An omission: it is not stated where these
      communications are to be filed.) "12) [All groups subordinate to
      committees, and individual Party members, have the right to
      demand that their opinions and recommendations on any subject be
      communicated to the Central Committee of the Party and its
      Central Organs.]—13) The local Party committees shall
      contribute from their revenues to the funds of the Central
      Committee such sums as the Central Committee shall assign to
      their share.—III. Organisations for the Purpose of
      Agitation in Languages Other than Russian.—14) [For the
      purpose of carrying on agitation in any non-Russian language and
      of organising the workers among whom such agitation is carried
      on, separate organisations may be set up in places where such
      specialised agitation and the setting up of such organisations
      are deemed necessary.]—15) The question as to whether such
      a necessity exists shall be decided by the Central Committee of
      the Party, and in disputed cases by the Party Congress." The
      firstpart of this paragraph is superfluous in view of
      subsequent provisions in the Rules, and the second part,
      concerning disputed cases, is simply ludicrous. "16) [The local
      organisations mentioned in Paragraph 14 shall be autonomous in
      their special affairs but shall act under the control of the
      local committee and be subordinate to it, the forms of this
      control and the character of the organisational relations
      between the committee and the special organisation being
      determined by the local committee." (Well, thank God! It is now
      quite clear that this whole spate of empty words was
      superfluous.) "In respect of the general affairs of the Party,
      such organisations shall act as part of the committee
      organisation.]—17) [The local organisations mentioned in
      Paragraph 14 may form autonomous leagues for the effective
      performance of their special tasks. These leagues may have their
      own special press and administrative bodies both being under the
      direct control of the Central Committee of the Party. The Rules
      of these leagues shall be drawn up by themselves, but shall be
      subject to endorsement by the Central Committee of the
      Party.]—18) [The autonomous leagues mentioned in Paragraph
      17 may include local Party committees if, by reason of local
      conditions, these devote themselves mainly to agitation in the
      given language.Note. While forming part of the
      autonomous league, such a committee does not cease to be a
      committee of the Party.]" (This entire paragraph is extremely
      useful and wonderfully clever, the note even more so.) "19) [The
      relations of local organisations belonging to an autonomous
      league with the central bodies of that league shall be
      controlled by the local committees.]—20) [The central press
      and administrative bodies of the autonomous leagues shall stand
      in the same relation to the Central Committee of the Party as
      the local Party committees.]—IV. Central Committee and
      Press Organs of the Party.—21) [The Party as a whole shall
      be represented by its Central Committee and its press organs,
      political and theoretical.]—22) The functions of the
      Central Committee shall be: to exercise general direction of all
      the practical activities of the Party; to ensure the proper
      utilisation and allocation of all its forces; to exercise
      control over the activities of all sections of the Party, to
      supply the local organisations with literature; to organise the
      technical apparatus of the Party, to convene Party
      congresses.—23) The functions of the press organs of the
      Party shall be: to exercise ideological direction of Party life,
      to conduct propaganda for the Party programme, and to carry out
      theoretical and popular elaboration of the world outlook of
      Social-Democracy.—24) All local Party committees and
      autonomous leagues shall maintain direct communication both with
      the Central Committee of the Party and with the editorial board
      of the Party organs and shall keep them periodically informed of
      the progress of the movement and of organisational work in their
      localities.—25) The editorial board of the Party press
      organs shall be appointed at Party congresses and shall function
      until the next congress.—26) [The editorial board shall be
      autonomous in its internal affairs] and may in the interval
      between congresses augment or alter its membership, informing
      the Central Committee in each case.—27) All statements
      issued by the Central Committee or receiving its sanction shall
      on the demand of the Central Committee, be published in the
      Partyorgan.—28) The Central Committee, by agreement with
      the editorial board of the Party organs, shall set up special
      writers’ groups for various forms of literary work.—29) The
      Central Committee shall be appointed at Party congresses and
      shall function until the next congress. The Central Committee
      may augment its membership by means of co-optation, without
      restriction as to numbers, in each case informing the editorial
      board of the Central Organs of the Party.—V. The Party
      Organisation Abroad.—30) The Party organisation abroad
      shall carry on propaganda among Russians living abroad and
      organise the socialist elements among them. It shall be headed
      by an elected administrative body.—31) The autonomous
      leagues belonging to the Party may maintain branches abroad to
      assist in carrying out their special tasks. These branches shall
      constitute autonomous groups within the general organisation
      abroad.—VI. Party Congresses.—32) The supreme Party
      authority is the Congress.—33) [The Party Congress shall
      lay down the Programme, Rules and guiding principles of the
      activities of the Party, it shall control the work of all Party
      bodies and settle disputes arising between them.]—34) The
      right to be represented at congresses shall be enjoyed by: a)
      all local Party committees; b) the central administrative bodies
      of all the autonomous leagues belonging to the Party, c) the
      Central Committee of the Party and the editorial board of its
      Central Organs; d) the Party organisation abroad.—35)
      Mandates may be entrusted to proxies, but no delegate shall hold
      more than three valid mandates. A mandate may be divided between
      two representatives. Binding instructions are
      forbidden.—36) The Central Committee shall be empowered to
      invite to the congress in a deliberative capacity comrades whose
      presence may be useful.—37) Amendments to the Programme or
      Rules of the Party shall require a two-thirds majority; other
      questions shall be decided by a simple majority.—38) A
      congress shall be deemed properly constituted if more than half
      the Party committees existing at the time of it are
      represented.—39) Congresses shall, as far as possible, be
      convened once every two years [If for reasons beyond the control
      of the Central Committee a congress cannot be convened within
      this period, the Central Committee shall on its own
      responsibility postpone it.]"

Any reader who, by way of an exception, has had the patience to
      read these so-called Rules to the end assuredly will not expect
      me to give special reasons for the following conclusions. First
      conclusion: the Rules suffer from almost incurable
      dropsy. Second conclusion: it is impossible to discover in these
      Rules any special shade of organisational views evincing a
      disapproval of hypertrophy of centralism. Third conclusion:
      Comrade Martov acted very wisely indeed in concealing from the
      eyes of the world (and withholding from discussion at the
      Congress) more than 38/39 of his Rules. Only it is rather odd
      thatà proposof this concealment he should talk
      about an open visor.

[1]Note: This footnote has been moved 
 into the body of the document.

[2]See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 13-24.—Ed.

[3]See present edition, Vol. 5, pp. 347-529.—Ed.

[4]See present edition, Vol. 6, pp. 231-52.—Ed.

[5]See pp. 132-33 of this volume.—Ed.

[6]Note: This footnote has been moved into the body of the document.

[7]I might mention that unfortunately I could not find the first variant
of Comrade Martov’s draft, which consisted of some forty-eight paragraphs
and suffered even more from “hypertrophy” of worthless formalism. —Lenin

[8]We would draw Comrade
      Axelrod’s attention to this word. Why this is terrible! Here are
      the roots of that “Jacobinism” which goes to the length even
      . . . even of altering the composition of an editorial board
      .... —Lenin